[PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[Du Cheng]

align * in block comments on each line

changes v3:
- add SUBSYSTEM in subject line
- add explanation to past version of this patch

changes v2:
- move closing of comment to the same line

changes v1:
- align * in block comments

Signed-off-by: Du Cheng <ducheng2@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
index 5516be3af898..2682a0e474bd 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
@@ -3815,8 +3815,7 @@ static int qlge_adapter_down(struct qlge_adapter *qdev)
 
 	qlge_tx_ring_clean(qdev);
 
-	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point.
-	*/
+	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point. */
 	for (i = 0; i < qdev->rss_ring_count; i++)
 		netif_napi_del(&qdev->rx_ring[i].napi);
 
-- 
2.27.0

[PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[Du Cheng]

align * in block comments on each line

changes v3:
- add SUBSYSTEM in subject line
- add explanation to past version of this patch

changes v2:
- move closing of comment to the same line

changes v1:
- align * in block comments

Signed-off-by: Du Cheng <ducheng2@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
index 5516be3af898..2682a0e474bd 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
@@ -3815,8 +3815,7 @@ static int qlge_adapter_down(struct qlge_adapter *qdev)
 
 	qlge_tx_ring_clean(qdev);
 
-	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point.
-	*/
+	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point. */
 	for (i = 0; i < qdev->rss_ring_count; i++)
 		netif_napi_del(&qdev->rx_ring[i].napi);
 
-- 
2.27.0

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Re: [PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[Heiner Kallweit]

On 16.02.2021 09:53, Du Cheng wrote:
> align * in block comments on each line
> 
> changes v3:
> - add SUBSYSTEM in subject line
> - add explanation to past version of this patch
> 
> changes v2:
> - move closing of comment to the same line
> 
> changes v1:
> - align * in block comments
> 
> Signed-off-by: Du Cheng <ducheng2@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> index 5516be3af898..2682a0e474bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> @@ -3815,8 +3815,7 @@ static int qlge_adapter_down(struct qlge_adapter *qdev)
>  
>  	qlge_tx_ring_clean(qdev);
>  
> -	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point.
> -	*/
> +	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point. */
>  	for (i = 0; i < qdev->rss_ring_count; i++)
>  		netif_napi_del(&qdev->rx_ring[i].napi);
>  
> 
Typically such trivial patches aren't much appreciated for staging drivers.
In the case here I have doubts that the comment as such provides any benefit.

Re: [PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[Heiner Kallweit]

On 16.02.2021 09:53, Du Cheng wrote:
> align * in block comments on each line
> 
> changes v3:
> - add SUBSYSTEM in subject line
> - add explanation to past version of this patch
> 
> changes v2:
> - move closing of comment to the same line
> 
> changes v1:
> - align * in block comments
> 
> Signed-off-by: Du Cheng <ducheng2@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> index 5516be3af898..2682a0e474bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> @@ -3815,8 +3815,7 @@ static int qlge_adapter_down(struct qlge_adapter *qdev)
>  
>  	qlge_tx_ring_clean(qdev);
>  
> -	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point.
> -	*/
> +	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point. */
>  	for (i = 0; i < qdev->rss_ring_count; i++)
>  		netif_napi_del(&qdev->rx_ring[i].napi);
>  
> 
Typically such trivial patches aren't much appreciated for staging drivers.
In the case here I have doubts that the comment as such provides any benefit.

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Re: [PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:53:26PM +0800, Du Cheng wrote:
> align * in block comments on each line
> 
> changes v3:
> - add SUBSYSTEM in subject line
> - add explanation to past version of this patch
> 
> changes v2:
> - move closing of comment to the same line
> 
> changes v1:
> - align * in block comments

These "changes" should all go below the --- line, right?

And the subject shoudl be a bit more specific, look at how other commits
are done for this driver.  Something like:
	Subject: staging: qlge: fix comment style in qlge_main.c
matches much better, and conveys what is actually happening here, right?

v4 please?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:53:26PM +0800, Du Cheng wrote:
> align * in block comments on each line
> 
> changes v3:
> - add SUBSYSTEM in subject line
> - add explanation to past version of this patch
> 
> changes v2:
> - move closing of comment to the same line
> 
> changes v1:
> - align * in block comments

These "changes" should all go below the --- line, right?

And the subject shoudl be a bit more specific, look at how other commits
are done for this driver.  Something like:
	Subject: staging: qlge: fix comment style in qlge_main.c
matches much better, and conveys what is actually happening here, right?

v4 please?

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Re: [PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 10:20:22AM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 16.02.2021 09:53, Du Cheng wrote:
> > align * in block comments on each line
> > 
> > changes v3:
> > - add SUBSYSTEM in subject line
> > - add explanation to past version of this patch
> > 
> > changes v2:
> > - move closing of comment to the same line
> > 
> > changes v1:
> > - align * in block comments
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Du Cheng <ducheng2@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > index 5516be3af898..2682a0e474bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > @@ -3815,8 +3815,7 @@ static int qlge_adapter_down(struct qlge_adapter *qdev)
> >  
> >  	qlge_tx_ring_clean(qdev);
> >  
> > -	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point.
> > -	*/
> > +	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point. */
> >  	for (i = 0; i < qdev->rss_ring_count; i++)
> >  		netif_napi_del(&qdev->rx_ring[i].napi);
> >  
> > 
> Typically such trivial patches aren't much appreciated for staging drivers.
> In the case here I have doubts that the comment as such provides any benefit.

Huh?  What?  I think you have mixed up staging and non-staging.  In
staging we apply this sort of patch all the time.

This patch improves the code.  It's the only warning of this type in the
file.  We will apply it.

If you start down the path of worrying about "is this worth doing" then
you end up wasting maintainer time and developer time.  That's like an
ambiguous thing, right?  We try to avoid ambiguity and be mechanical and
predictable.

We won't apply patches which fix checkpatch warnings if the result is
worse looking code.  This might seem like an ambiguous judgement call to
newbies but it is actually 100% predictable to oldbies.  :P

Anyway the v2 v3 stuff is supposed to be below the --- cut off so please
fix that and resend.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH v3] staging: fix coding style in driver/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 10:20:22AM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 16.02.2021 09:53, Du Cheng wrote:
> > align * in block comments on each line
> > 
> > changes v3:
> > - add SUBSYSTEM in subject line
> > - add explanation to past version of this patch
> > 
> > changes v2:
> > - move closing of comment to the same line
> > 
> > changes v1:
> > - align * in block comments
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Du Cheng <ducheng2@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > index 5516be3af898..2682a0e474bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > @@ -3815,8 +3815,7 @@ static int qlge_adapter_down(struct qlge_adapter *qdev)
> >  
> >  	qlge_tx_ring_clean(qdev);
> >  
> > -	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point.
> > -	*/
> > +	/* Call netif_napi_del() from common point. */
> >  	for (i = 0; i < qdev->rss_ring_count; i++)
> >  		netif_napi_del(&qdev->rx_ring[i].napi);
> >  
> > 
> Typically such trivial patches aren't much appreciated for staging drivers.
> In the case here I have doubts that the comment as such provides any benefit.

Huh?  What?  I think you have mixed up staging and non-staging.  In
staging we apply this sort of patch all the time.

This patch improves the code.  It's the only warning of this type in the
file.  We will apply it.

If you start down the path of worrying about "is this worth doing" then
you end up wasting maintainer time and developer time.  That's like an
ambiguous thing, right?  We try to avoid ambiguity and be mechanical and
predictable.

We won't apply patches which fix checkpatch warnings if the result is
worse looking code.  This might seem like an ambiguous judgement call to
newbies but it is actually 100% predictable to oldbies.  :P

Anyway the v2 v3 stuff is supposed to be below the --- cut off so please
fix that and resend.

regards,
dan carpenter

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel